ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2012
Analytical and simulation methods for estimating the potential predictive ability of genetic profiling: a comparison of methods and results.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Constructing Hypothetical Risk Data from the Area under the ROC Curve: Modelling Distributions of Polygenic Risk.PloS one · 2016Article
- Variations in predicted risks in personal genome testing for common complex diseases.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2014Article
- Estimating the predictive ability of genetic risk models in simulated data based on published results from genome-wide association studies.Frontiers in genetics · 2014Article
- Genetic tests obtainable through pharmacies: the good, the bad, and the ugly.Human genomics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various modeling methods have been proposed to estimate the potential predictive ability of polygenic risk variants that predispose to various common diseases. However, it is unknown whether differences between them affect their conclusions on predictive ability. We reviewed input parameters, assumptions and output of the five most common methods and compared their estimates of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) using hypothetical data representing effect sizes and frequencies of genetic variants, population disease risk and number of variants. To assess the accuracy of the estimated AUCs, we aimed to reproduce the AUCs of published empirical studies. All methods assumed that the combined effect of genetic variants on disease risk followed a multiplicative risk model of independent genetic effects, but they either assumed per allele, per genotype or dominant/recessive effects for the genetic variants. Modeling strategy and input parameters differed. Methods used simulation analysis or analytical formulas with effect sizes quantified by odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks. Estimated AUC values were similar for lower ORs (<1.2). When AUCs were larger (>0.7) due to variants with strong effects, differences in estimated AUCs between methods increased. The simulation methods accurately reproduced the AUC values of empirical studies, but the analytical methods did not. We conclude that despite differences in input parameters, the modeling methods estimate similar AUC for realistic values of the ORs. When one or more variants have stronger effects and AUC values are higher, the simulation methods tend to be more accurate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.